Regardless of what you think of hunting, the law about it is very silly. For example, it forbids classic hunting, but allows hunters to use dogs to flush the animals out then eagles to kill them, which probably makes it more of a spectacle. I was therefore amused to read this story this morning in the Telegraph. Here's a quick sample.
A retired police officer has admitted twice flouting the new hunting law by allowing his terrier dog to chase and kill a mouse and a mole.
George Morrison, 51, reported himself to former colleagues but he was not prosecuted over either incident.
...
Mr Morrison served with Northumbria Police for 30 years before retiring as a detective inspector three months after the Government's Hunting Act came into force in February last year.
He turned himself in to the police on both occasions to demonstrate that the 2004 Hunting Act was a "ridiculous law".
Thinking about it, it is possible that the law does exactly what it was intended to do - appeases the hunting protesters while not actually stopping hunting. (If it works, it shows the hunting protesters were actually motivated by pride, not by concerns for animal welfare, but I think we knew that anyway.) The downside of that though is that it weakens the notions of the rule of law and the utility of law still further.
2 comments:
"If it works, it shows the hunting protesters were actually motivated by pride, not by concerns for animal welfare, but I think we knew that anyway"
Care to expand?
I don't think many people actually believe that animal welfare has been improved by the bill. The same number of foxes, etc are dying as before, and if anything they're dying less humanely than before (dogs being better than marksmen at quick kills).
However, the anti-hunting protesters seem to have stopped. They give the impression of having got what they wanted, but animal welfare hasn't improved. Therefore it looks as if they weren't motivated by animal welfare. Pride is therefore the obvious remaining candidate for motivation.
Why did we know it anyway? Quite simply - during the "debate", they didn't appear to be affected by compelling arguments on ground of animal welfare but continued saying exactly the same thing. Classic pride behaviour.
Post a Comment